<quoted text>I'm not going to get into an extended "rebuttal". I have tired of it. I have but a couple of simple questions.Is the who works for you that has the Ph.D incapable of doing the hard physical labor? And is the hard physical laborer capable of giving you an economic analysis?And certainly not knowing the true nature of your business, if you were forced to choose only one employee, getting rid of the other not to replace them, at least in the short term, which would be the most likely for you to keep on to keep your business from shutting down?

OMG SIB! You worked at a College all your life. Never had to apply the theories in a real business environment. Enjoy your pension that I am still paying for.......

<quoted text>You really don't pay attention do you? I wasn't talking about all those born into money, just the ones who were and then look down at the poor and complain that they can't make anything of them selves. Well they didn't 'make' anything of themselves either. My other point was that even though I don't have an address in Bermuda I, unlike them, have made something of myself. I have bettered myself and I did it all on my own without daddy's money.

So that makes you better than everyone else doesn't it Stevie? The only one "looking down" is you, but nice try. Bigoted, arrogant, elitists generally "assume" they are better than others. Thanks for making that point.

<quoted text>I'm not going to get into an extended "rebuttal". I have tired of it. I have but a couple of simple questions.Is the who works for you that has the Ph.D incapable of doing the hard physical labor? And is the hard physical laborer capable of giving you an economic analysis?And certainly not knowing the true nature of your business, if you were forced to choose only one employee, getting rid of the other not to replace them, at least in the short term, which would be the most likely for you to keep on to keep your business from shutting down?

The PhD doesn't have the physical abilities necessary to do the job in the same way that, even though I am in good health I could not play college, much less pro-football. And the physical laborer doesn't have the education and experience to give a economic analysis.

For a short term layoff I'd let the laborer go because the PhD is a "nice to have" but if I was choosing between the laborer and a sales person, who just sits at a computer on talks on the phone, the laborer would go. Same with the shift manager and a single laborer; the manager would stay.

I still don't think you really understand how wages are set and why an NFL quarterback makes a lot more than a police officer. And even more importantly that wages will never be "fair" and no one will ever make what they "deserve".

<quoted text>The PhD doesn't have the physical abilities necessary to do the job in the same way that, even though I am in good health I could not play college, much less pro-football. And the physical laborer doesn't have the education and experience to give a economic analysis.For a short term layoff I'd let the laborer go because the PhD is a "nice to have" but if I was choosing between the laborer and a sales person, who just sits at a computer on talks on the phone, the laborer would go. Same with the shift manager and a single laborer; the manager would stay.I still don't think you really understand how wages are set and why an NFL quarterback makes a lot more than a police officer. And even more importantly that wages will never be "fair" and no one will ever make what they "deserve".

I very well understand how wages are set. And one of the reasons an NFL quarterback is paid as much as they are is because they are represented by a union or legal representative that negotiates on their behalf.

And that you are okay that a police officer, firefighter, EMT, etc. being paid so little is really sad. And one the reasons police officers and firefighters; those public protectors, are paid so little is because the richest in the community don't want to have to pay any more taxes than they are forced to and the lower income people in the community can't afford to. So that's where the two economic sides come together but for two very different reasons.

That you find it justifiable in those who would save your life and property being paid less, grossly less, while those that would entertain you are compensated so much more is simply sad. The same with those who build the buildings that shelter you, the vehicles that transport you and deliver the goods you depend on to survive, etc.

Societies that identify inequities and move to correct them advance. Those that do not fail.

<quoted text>I very well understand how wages are set. And one of the reasons an NFL quarterback is paid as much as they are is because they are represented by a union or legal representative that negotiates on their behalf.And that you are okay that a police officer, firefighter, EMT, etc. being paid so little is really sad. And one the reasons police officers and firefighters; those public protectors, are paid so little is because the richest in the community don't want to have to pay any more taxes than they are forced to and the lower income people in the community can't afford to. So that's where the two economic sides come together but for two very different reasons.That you find it justifiable in those who would save your life and property being paid less, grossly less, while those that would entertain you are compensated so much more is simply sad. The same with those who build the buildings that shelter you, the vehicles that transport you and deliver the goods you depend on to survive, etc.Societies that identify inequities and move to correct them advance. Those that do not fail.

The union has NOTHING to do with how much a quarterback is paid. They are responsible for why the minimum wage for a player is over $300,000 for a bench warmer, safty issues, etc. The players agent determines how much the quarterback makes, not the union.

Don't equate understanding with being ok with something. I think combat soldiers are woefully underpaid both in service and afterwards. Police and fire is a little tougher because 90% of police officers never fire their gun while on duty. Same with firemen, there is a big difference between a fireman in New York City and Grand Rapids. And firemen in NY make a lot more than those in GR.

But since you don't understand how wages are set you'll always be frustrated. One simple reason why entertainers make more money is they impact more people. Person puts out a song and billions of people can buy it. Even if they only sell 1,000,000 downloads that's $1,000,000 in their account. A police officer in Grand Rapids at best impacts a few thousand within their beat. If you pay the police office double the star, the officer is going to get a massive wage cut because the office doesn't have nearly as many people contributing to their wage.

Other factors like skills, uniqueness, demand, competition, etc. also come into play. As my kids were growing up and talking about what they wanted to do, part of my job as a parent was to wake them up to the reality of the real world. Yes, they could make millions as the next Disney star, or they could make pennies as a want-to-be-star.

"Societies that identify inequities and move to correct them advance. Those that do not fail." Hogwash. Lenin tried and created even more inequities. Same with the French revolution. Every movement that has tried to correct inequities outside of the free market system has created even more inequities. Humans have biases, predjudices, stereotypes, stupidity, and a host of "isms" that screw things up.

Actually, in the NFL the Player's Union and the owners worked out a contract that set's perameters that rookie(including Qb's) contracts can be, based on their draft order.....remember the lockout, last summer?

<quoted text>The union has NOTHING to do with how much a quarterback is paid. They are responsible for why the minimum wage for a player is over $300,000 for a bench warmer, safty issues, etc. The players agent determines how much the quarterback makes, not the union.Don't equate understanding with being ok with something. I think combat soldiers are woefully underpaid both in service and afterwards. Police and fire is a little tougher because 90% of police officers never fire their gun while on duty. Same with firemen, there is a big difference between a fireman in New York City and Grand Rapids. And firemen in NY make a lot more than those in GR.But since you don't understand how wages are set you'll always be frustrated. One simple reason why entertainers make more money is they impact more people. Person puts out a song and billions of people can buy it. Even if they only sell 1,000,000 downloads that's $1,000,000 in their account. A police officer in Grand Rapids at best impacts a few thousand within their beat. If you pay the police office double the star, the officer is going to get a massive wage cut because the office doesn't have nearly as many people contributing to their wage.Other factors like skills, uniqueness, demand, competition, etc. also come into play. As my kids were growing up and talking about what they wanted to do, part of my job as a parent was to wake them up to the reality of the real world. Yes, they could make millions as the next Disney star, or they could make pennies as a want-to-be-star."Societies that identify inequities and move to correct them advance. Those that do not fail." Hogwash. Lenin tried and created even more inequities. Same with the French revolution. Every movement that has tried to correct inequities outside of the free market system has created even more inequities. Humans have biases, predjudices, stereotypes, stupidity, and a host of "isms" that screw things up.

I'll just bet you're a fan of Dancing With The Stars because you like dancing around the point so much.

In the psychology science they call what you do avoidance and, and through, transference.

<quoted text>I'll just bet you're a fan of Dancing With The Stars because you like dancing around the point so much.In the psychology science they call what you do avoidance and, and through, transference.

I'm not sure what points I'm avoiding. I went back through all of the posts and you keep losing to myself and others. If you bring up a specific point that you feel I'm avoiding I'll try to respond as quickly as possible.

Swap meet Louie said what a better with a little boys up and I was going to but that's when I guess couch because they didn't want me to come back there any more after I got put on Craigslist for the fact is I didn't do anything with the kids don't like it either drive Ashland so they won't hurt.

<quoted text>I'm not sure what points I'm avoiding. I went back through all of the posts and you keep losing to myself and others. If you bring up a specific point that you feel I'm avoiding I'll try to respond as quickly as possible.

Well seeing as you've appointed yourself the judge/referee of course I would lose.

<quoted text>Well seeing as you've appointed yourself the judge/referee of course I would lose.I'm over it you win...by your own judgement.

I'm not the judge, I'm just waiting for an actual argument and not simply your opinion. Everyone has an opinion....

You say that it isn't "fair" that this person makes more than that person. Well, who in that instance is setting themselves up as more than judge/referee but God, decreeing that this person should make more than that person? That would be you.

You claim that this person "deserves" to pay more taxes because they make more. Based on what other than a childish opinion? Or a godlike decree?

It's not just Topix, but if you go look on any of the comment sections, liberals get hammered because they can't make a logical argument for their position. Which, since politics and winning in politics is almost all emotion isn't necessarily a bad thing for the one who wants to get elected. But in a public forum, emotional arguments get creamed.

And if you think I'm wrong, then put together a basic high school level argument that supports any of your positions without resorting to emotions and opinions.

<quoted text>I'm not the judge, I'm just waiting for an actual argument and not simply your opinion. Everyone has an opinion....You say that it isn't "fair" that this person makes more than that person. Well, who in that instance is setting themselves up as more than judge/referee but God, decreeing that this person should make more than that person? That would be you.You claim that this person "deserves" to pay more taxes because they make more. Based on what other than a childish opinion? Or a godlike decree?It's not just Topix, but if you go look on any of the comment sections, liberals get hammered because they can't make a logical argument for their position. Which, since politics and winning in politics is almost all emotion isn't necessarily a bad thing for the one who wants to get elected. But in a public forum, emotional arguments get creamed.And if you think I'm wrong, then put together a basic high school level argument that supports any of your positions without resorting to emotions and opinions.

An actual argument? Really? Just an opinion? Really? I'm probably one of the ones that post the most links for citing my arguments than anyone else. Especially the right-wing. Far most of what we get from the right is opinion with nothing else to back it up. At that all that is responded with is they are invalid sources.

And you're not the judge? When you sit there and say "liberals get hammered because they can't make a logical argument for their position."? Really? And you're not being the judge, because I think you'll find no "liberals" that will say the right are the ones making the logical arguments. How many citations have you presented? As opposed to how opinions have you posted.

<quoted text>An actual argument? Really? Just an opinion? Really? I'm probably one of the ones that post the most links for citing my arguments than anyone else. Especially the right-wing. Far most of what we get from the right is opinion with nothing else to back it up. At that all that is responded with is they are invalid sources.Like I said, I'm over it.

This isn't my fight and don't "hammer" me for putting in my two cents, but I think FL makes a good point. The left DOES base much of their argument on emotions, compassion, and feelings - and not common sense. That's not meant as an insult or to say the left doesn't have common sense, but many of the hot topics are argued in this manner:

Conservative: We have to cut spending on things we cannot sustain.Liberal: But what about the poor?OK, both good points. One side is looking at this from a common sense basis - as in, if this were your bank account and household. "If you haven't got the money you should stop spending. "The other side is looking at it from a compassion-based point. "We should help people in need."

Conservative: You can't just take more from one individual because they happen to have achieved a higher level of success and trust the government will distribute it "fairly" - whatever that means.Liberal: But it's not fair and they can afford to give more anyway.

There is always grey area, but in those two instances the basis for the left's argument is emotional over what any individual would or could do if the state of their household was that of our government, while the right is looking at it from a common sense realism standpoint.

FL simply made an honest statement about the basis for liberal arguments and then asked for a specific subject to debate in order to demonstrate it.You ended it with an emotional cut-off: "I'm over it".

<quoted text>This isn't my fight and don't "hammer" me for putting in my two cents, but I think FL makes a good point. The left DOES base much of their argument on emotions, compassion, and feelings - and not common sense. That's not meant as an insult or to say the left doesn't have common sense, but many of the hot topics are argued in this manner:Conservative: We have to cut spending on things we cannot sustain.Liberal: But what about the poor?OK, both good points. One side is looking at this from a common sense basis - as in, if this were your bank account and household. "If you haven't got the money you should stop spending. "The other side is looking at it from a compassion-based point. "We should help people in need."Conservative: You can't just take more from one individual because they happen to have achieved a higher level of success and trust the government will distribute it "fairly" - whatever that means.Liberal: But it's not fair and they can afford to give more anyway.There is always grey area, but in those two instances the basis for the left's argument is emotional over what any individual would or could do if the state of their household was that of our government, while the right is looking at it from a common sense realism standpoint.FL simply made an honest statement about the basis for liberal arguments and then asked for a specific subject to debate in order to demonstrate it.You ended it with an emotional cut-off: "I'm over it".Common sense vs. emotion

You're points are well taken. And for the most part agreed with.

Yes we can't, well shouldn't be spending money on what we don't have.

But you are right and wrong with the factual as opposed to emotional arguments. Using your points:"Conservative: We have to cut spending on things we cannot sustain.Liberal: But what about the poor?OK, both good points. One side is looking at this from a common sense basis - as in, if this were your bank account and household. "If you haven't got the money you should stop spending. "The other side is looking at it from a compassion-based point. "We should help people in need."

Why not cut back on the spending, better yet eliminate, we cannot sustain like subsidies, grants and general corporate welfare for those, both domestic and foreign, companies that don't actually need it except to bolster their bottom line, executive salaries and bonuses along with securing investor('s) value(s)? But we never hear anything about that except for the "emotional" liberals. Since when are arguments like that emotional except for personal opinion?

The entire discussion with FL started with specific examples only being met with hypotheses like the market setting wages that no one has a choice to deviate from. Well up from.

This will explain the theory of the market quite well and it's not my opinion."The Meaning of Labor Markets

Under the capitalist system workers are no longer paid for the value of what they produce, nor do they retain rights to ownership of what they produce, instead they are paid by how little compensation someone else is willing to do the same job for. Just as it is understood that market competition drives the price of other commodities down, it has the same impact on labor when labor is a commodity."http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/capita...

Not "hammering" on you, just pointing out that because one/some benefits personally from viewing the others arguments as emotional does not make them such.

I see the arguments that keeping the tax payers on the hook for monies spent on corporations that are and have been well beyond the need to keep them alive as sacrosanct is the emotional argument when the facts bare it out to be false.

Nobody cares what you believe in Jas up your ass with a little bit about Selena big time on the bear back I like the little yellow me go out for the first time to repair a tongue sticking out on what you agree with you about door like a wrestling on him stick

SIB, thanks for the link It gives me better insight into your writings. The article was based on Marx’s work and thus has more holes than swiss cheese. But to be fair, I’ll keep my comments and examples to the article that you provided.“People were not generally "employed" to work.” False. People have been employed since the beginning of time. People hired others long ago, going back to ancient Greece, Biblical, and Roman times. Think of the sailors who traded their labor for wages, a share of the prize, or simply the opportunity to escape home/boredom/the law. Wars displaced people from their homes and rather than starve they were hired to serve, farm, fish, soldier, etc.“People produced commodities or offered services as workers, but what they were compensated for was the goods or services directly.” The article acts as people were paid by individuals in the past and now they are paid by faceless companies. Again that is false. If I hired you 2,000 years ago to help me catch fish, I paid you to do so. If I hire you today to help me catch fish, I still pay you to do so. In both cases I am a small business owner. The only difference has to do with technology and government laws so 2,000 years ago I handed you the money and today I hand you a check. But to claim that somehow things are different is to overly romanticize the past and vilify the present for propaganda purposes.“For example, a blacksmith was not employed by a company or group to make horseshoes at an hourly rate, the blacksmith made tools and horseshoes and he sold these items directly. He was paid for the products that he produced. His income was derived from selling his goods.” The blacksmith was a small business and often employed others to open the shop, start the fire, etc. The bigger issue is the idea that his income was derived from selling his goods. That’s false. His income was derived from using his labor to convert raw material into a finished good. This is an important distinction because if his income was derived from the selling of the finished good then a second blacksmith would be unable to sell the same finished good for a different price. But the second blacksmith can choose a different value for his labor and thus sell a plow for $1 instead of $1.50 that the first blacksmith charges. Humans have always traded their time/labor/talent/intellect for something they needed/wanted.“This is important to understand, because capitalism is not just about private ownership of the means of production, indeed it is about the private ownership of the means of production, the private concentration of capital, and the employment of wage-labor.” Again this is false. Going back 2,000 years, a fisherman owned his boat and his nets. A blacksmith owned his forge and tools. And they hired people. Even the Bible talks about wage-labor in Genesis so this isn’t something new.“The result of capitalism is that labor went from being seen as the source of property rights to being a commodity, and instead capital ownership became seen as the source of rights to newly created property…With the capitalist system, labor is a commodity, no different than raw materials. It's one more thing that capitalists factor into their budget as a part of the cost of production.”Labor was never seen as a source of property rights. In the past life was cheap and so was labor. You could be captured and made a slave or your family could sell you as a slave. Often labor was exchanged for basic needs of shelter, food and water. What “property rights” did the builders of the pyramids have? Or the Great Wall of China? Or the gladiators in the Coliseum? What changed wasn’t the economic system but the legal system that outlined property rights and requirements. Going back to the beginning of mankind labor has always been a commodity, sometimes abundant and cheap and sometimes rare and expensive.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.